The sad reality is that most Republicans also want BIG Government only they think it can be run more efficiently or should be used for causes they favor. I know Paul Ryan is the fiscal darling of many conservatives but if you actually read his Roadmap for America, it essentially locks in federal spending at 23-24% of GDP and taxes at 19% of GDP through around 2050. Beyond that the deficit comes down as the baby boomer are all dead so Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are assumed to shrink. The fist surplus is assumed to occur in 2063! Levin is right, this whole thing is MIckey Mouse and shame on true conservatives if they allow Republican leaders to get away with it. The Sequester is the law of the land. Live with it!
August 10, 2013 at 11:49am
ObamaCare is not “a” step toward a single-payer system, it is “the” step. If you want to remove the private sector completely from healthcare and have a government run system like the UK, then you develop a law/system that will create financial incentives for: 1. employers to stop providing health insurance (that’s why the employer penalties are so low), 2. insurance companies to raise premiums (no pre-existing conditions, expanded coverage) and 3. doctors to stop seeing patients (low Medicare reimbursement rates). History shows that the people will blame “greedy corporations” and “doctors” for this outcome rather than the politicians that created this mess and will demand government “do something”. Ultimately, ObamaCare is about “nudging” us toward “choosing” a government run system where we all will have equal access (except the ruling class which will have better service, doctors and facilities) to a healthcare system that, like all government run monopolies, will provide substandard care at a rather high cost to taxpayers.
You are so very observant. They had to leave the insurance companies in place otherwise the government would take all the blame for it the suddenly poor delivery system that would've been so noticeable. But here's the real deal. Americans are getting healthy because of this. The individual fine is pretty low too. Americans are eating healthier. Americans are researching ways to be healthy and they may just reject the government system as it is already so obviously clumsy and unorganized. Black market health care clubs will break out immediately. There are still so many resourceful people in the country. Our government doesn't stand a chance
The UK has not removed the private sector.. look up BUPA.. Or Harley Street
You know what.. It is amazing the job that lobbyists and representatives of insurance companies/drug companies etc have done on so many of the American people (mainly on the Right).
Trying to get you guys to challenge the veracity of a talking-point is hopeless. All it needs is an anecdote that supports what you have been told to think and it's game over.. Worse still people actually convince you that this is called being objective and critically thinking.
Wake up! Do a bit of research and challenge some of these claims..
January 24, 2013 at 9:04pm
I work in the utility industry and would like to provide some facts to this discussion. There are issues associated with smart meters but property access is not one of them. I don’t know the specific tariffs of this particular utility but in general when a person requests service they are granting the utility access to their property so the utility can install and maintain the equipment necessary to provide such service. The irony in this case is that the homeowners are objecting to workers being on their property yet that likely occurs every month when the meter is read. One advantage of a smart meter is that no one will ever step foot on their property again to read a meter because that will be done remotely. As to the RF issues, I can only assume that these people don’t own cell phones, wireless routers, iPads, etc. If RF is their concern they should be demonstrating at the local Apple Store. The biggest issues with smart meters are cost vs. benefits and cyber security. It has been demonstrated that they can be hacked into to turn off service or alter readings. Security has improved but like anything cyber, the hackers will take up the challenge. As to cost, the biggest driver of installations has been federal stimulus money because absent this subsidy, they would not be cost effective yet in most cases. My utility can’t make the numbers work to save customers money. A number of utilities who installed smart meters are struggling to justify the costs and lack of savin
As the grid gets more and more overloaded in the future what is going to stop them from cutting off your power for longer and longer periods. Hacking is a real concern. Smart appliances are coming. Why not install these on the pole at the drop. Clamp on amp reader with the transmitter. I think designing to fit the existing socket may have been the wrong way to go.
I work for an electrical co-op in Ohio, and i install and maintain these "smart" meters every day. Firstly, people sign a contract for power which means we own the meter, always have, and on occasion we need access to it. I hate being in anyone's yard and these meters are meant to save us all money. Labor costs on my end. They send an ultralow frequency signal over the power lines to a collector at the substation. Satellite then sends reading to our office. They are no more dangerous than any electronic item in your home. And why would anyone want to hack into your power meter. Cant be done for that matter. We cannot selectively cut your power from a remote location through your meter. Oh, the option is there but it was extremely cost prohibitive as a cost per unit. Nearly triples the price of 1 meter. If someones account is in arrears, i will be out to try and collect, and if unsuccessful i will turn off the meter the old fashioned way.
Duek- You can't see why someone or some business would want to hack your meter. Really? Think about it some more. Also you may want to get more info about what they are doing in other states.
December 17, 2012 at 10:06pm
As sad as the CT murders are, the reality is that according to the Center for Disease Control, almost 50% more children aged 0-14 are killed in vehicular accidents than by violent acts (which are not all guns). In fact, almost as many children drown every year as are killed by violent acts. Why no presidential and congressional outrage over these deaths? Are children who die in cars and swimming pools less important than those killed by guns? Shouldn’t we be doing more to protect children in cars so that this carnage doesn’t continue? Perhaps we should put speed limiters on cars and require full roll cages, 4 point safety harnesses and helmets. Aren’t our children worth it?
The data is similar for all people. Almost 36,000 people die in auto accidents annually compared to less than 9,000 gun deaths. How many more people must die in cars before we put the appropriate limits on car ownership?